William Lane Craig Justifies Genocide.

[Antlerman]

I have some CD's and a book at home from Ken Wilber.

Which one? I'm around half-way through his massive 800 page Book One of Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. A friend of mine recommended it after a few discussions about the sorts of things I've been exploring in my thinking and reading. I'm not sure of all Wilber's conclusions at this point, or how he ties it all together yet, but it is definitely a formidable work to say the least.

 

Very helpful to me in being able to examine very many of these points of view I've been gaining by giving them terms and contexts. It gives a huge amount of context for me in my own spirituality, and explains a great deal as to why the mythic-system failed for me. Though in the particular form of the religion I was in it touched on the more regressive, lower stage experience, it was out of context because of rationality. What I had inside at the outset prior to seeking truth in the system, was left unfulfilled. This is why it's been my quest to reconcile reason and spirit, and I feel that has happened for me, and is continuing to happen.

 

Though there is value in a rational exploration of myth, this mythic-rational level of thinking, as Wilber puts it, is a contradiction to the world we are in, and the 'soul' of the world today. People like this apologist are living in a spiritual conflict, because their rational minds are constantly needing to make excuses like this. I feel badly for them, but it's part of their growth, if they're willing to face the pain of it, like any stage in development.

 

I found that quote quite powerful, and really put a stamp on top of this topic.

 

I do like the way he thinks, but I'm not yet capable of accepting his integral spirituality. I still want to make people be at a more developed spiritual level. I'm not happy with the exclusivity of some of the levels.

What exclusivity are you referring to? I'm not sure his conclusions of integral spirituality at this point, but I know that there are some things which are simply incompatible, and cannot be integrated. Fundamentalism is incompatible, it's a pathology. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

You are much closer...

to what?

[NotBlinded]

I have some CD's and a book at home from Ken Wilber.

Which one? I'm around half-way through his massive 800 page Book One of Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. A friend of mine recommended it after a few discussions about the sorts of things I've been exploring in my thinking and reading. I'm not sure of all Wilber's conclusions at this point, or how he ties it all together yet, but it is definitely a formidable work to say the least.

 

Very helpful to me in being able to examine very many of these points of view I've been gaining by giving them terms and contexts. It gives a huge amount of context for me in my own spirituality, and explains a great deal as to why the mythic-system failed for me. Though in the particular form of the religion I was in it touched on the more regressive, lower stage experience, it was out of context because of rationality. What I had inside at the outset prior to seeking truth in the system, was left unfulfilled. This is why it's been my quest to reconcile reason and spirit, and I feel that has happened for me, and is continuing to happen.

 

Though there is value in a rational exploration of myth, this mythic-rational level of thinking, as Wilber puts it, is a contradiction to the world we are in, and the 'soul' of the world today. People like this apologist are living in a spiritual conflict, because their rational minds are constantly needing to make excuses like this. I feel badly for them, but it's part of their growth, if they're willing to face the pain of it, like any stage in development.

 

I found that quote quite powerful, and really put a stamp on top of this topic.

The CD's are Kosmic Consciousness. The book I have is The Spectrum of Consciousness.

 

I haven't made it through the book. His works are formidable indeed.

 

The CD's are good, but I get stuck on one certain concept and that is accepting that all areas are needed for a truly integral understanding of existence. I think I am getting stuck because I don't want this level (the apologist) to exist, although I went through it myself. Maybe I am thinking that because this level is needed and contains some truths, then what is the point of trying to show others how bad it is?

 

I think I'm going to listen to the CDs again without my block, if I can.

 

 

I do like the way he thinks, but I'm not yet capable of accepting his integral spirituality. I still want to make people be at a more developed spiritual level. I'm not happy with the exclusivity of some of the levels.

What exclusivity are you referring to? I'm not sure his conclusions of integral spirituality at this point, but I know that there are some things which are simply incompatible, and cannot be integrated. Fundamentalism is incompatible, it's a pathology. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Yes, this could be my misunderstanding. If I can understand him as you have here, I can move on with his other thoughts and insights. I may have missed him speaking of what is pathological and I probably missed it because I fixated on the acceptance part.

 

Oh, the exclusive mindset of fundamentalism is what I was referring to when I mentioned that.

 

You are much closer...

to what?

To accepting this level as a needed level. I want it to go away!

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Why did he get out of the slaughtering business? What changed? How was he motivated to slaughter before, and not after?

 

It was inhumane. He like the spiritual, mysterious idea of taking one's life on earth now. Instead of slaughtering people with other people, this time he will just make them vanish into thin air; and then take over all nations

 

 

 

What changed, for God, that he didn't want this anymore? What triggered the change in his wishes?

 

I think personally, society. Yeah know, philosophy's entrance into society; it just probably seemed, good, to be more on the philosophical side.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Back to the genocide part. So God had them slayed, killed, murdered ( as some put it). What if God is just extremely Holy, the Bible is right, and His people needed to be Holy, and nothing in the confines of God could be foreign in that sense?

 

You should really watch this video by Bishop Spong:

 

You wouldn't did what supposedly God commanded? I am simply saying that I can see where they would've gotten the notion to obey God, and the God is Holy notion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're married and have kids, right? If God told you to murder your family, would you do it?

[Antlerman]

I haven't made it through the book. His works are formidable indeed.

 

The CD's are good, but I get stuck on one certain concept and that is accepting that all areas are needed for a truly integral understanding of existence. I think I am getting stuck because I don't want this level (the apologist) to exist, although I went through it myself. Maybe I am thinking that because this level is needed and contains some truths, then what is the point of trying to show others how bad it is?

Again, I haven't gotten through this massive work yet, but at this point here's my thoughts. It's all about stages of growth, from archaic, to magic, to mythic, to pre-operational, to concrete-operational, to formal operational, etc, that each new level incorporates the previous level and uses its basic structures, but replaces them with a new reality. We cannot evolve without going through these stages, or at the least gain a functional understanding with them. I don't get the impression that 'accepting' that all areas are needed for a integrated understanding of existence, this means approval or embrace of it. I don't want to speak for him, since I don't know his thinking here yet, but I would say fundamentalism is necessary, or rather what spawns fundamentalism is what is necessary for the whole to emerge to the next level. It's a symptom of change, and to me accepting that makes sense. You don't have to like it to understanding or accept it comes with it.

 

I think I'm going to listen to the CDs again without my block, if I can.

If I have some time later, I'll pull a few quotes for you and post them. I think it's abundantly clear that he rejects fundamentalism as inferior.

You are much closer...

to what?

To accepting this level as a needed level. I want it to go away!

I accept it, but I fight to help people overcome it. It will die once people have moved up.

[NotBlinded]

 

 

Why did he get out of the slaughtering business? What changed? How was he motivated to slaughter before, and not after?

 

It was inhumane. He like the spiritual, mysterious idea of taking one's life on earth now. Instead of slaughtering people with other people, this time he will just make them vanish into thin air; and then take over all nations

 

 

 

What changed, for God, that he didn't want this anymore? What triggered the change in his wishes?

 

I think personally, society. Yeah know, philosophy's entrance into society; it just probably seemed, good, to be more on the philosophical side.

Instigator...

[Deva]

Now, Israel was God's HOLY people supposedly, and they had a millionrules and laws to follow; not to mention that if things went bad, theywould worship anything they found.

 

Back to the genocide part. So God had them slayed, killed, murdered (as some put it). What if God is just extremely Holy, the Bible isright, and His people needed to be Holy, and nothing in the confines ofGod could be foreign in that sense?

 

Could a God that demanded Holiness to such a degree live among unholypeople of this nature? God in a sense then, was living among Israel,unlike now. He was hovering over a cloud, above the Holy of Hollieswere the priests worshiped.

 

Later you say:

 

I wouldn't say God was limited...

 

Yoyo, you are suggesting that God could not live among "unholy people" How do you reconcile that statement with God not being limited?

 

Actually, Yoyo, I am glad to see you getting on here and trying to defend the indefensible, the character of Old Testament Bible God. It just shows up how logically twisted the whole Christian religion is.

 

To NotBlinded: I have one recommendation on Ken Wilber - read his book "No Boundaries". I have tried to read other things written by him, but find them overly intellectualized and rather dry. In other words, no heart. I am sure it is mainly his personal style that is offputting. However, the core of what he says (nonduality) is important.

[NotBlinded]

 

To NotBlinded: I have one recommendation on Ken Wilber - read his book "No Boundaries". I have tried to read other things written by him, but find them overly intellectualized and rather dry. In other words, no heart. I am sure it is mainly his personal style that is offputting. However, the core of what he says (nonduality) is important.

Yes, that's it! I am very found of Alan Watts because of his heart and humor. I will go bookmark that book at Amazon right now. Thank you!

 

Oh, I think I have The Simple Feeling of Being at home also. I'm going to read that now.

[Antlerman]

To NotBlinded: I have one recommendation on Ken Wilber - read his book "No Boundaries". I have tried to read other things written by him, but find them overly intellectualized and rather dry. In other words, no heart. I am sure it is mainly his personal style that is offputting. However, the core of what he says (nonduality) is important.

That's funny. I read a reviewer on Amazon say sort of the same thing. But they added that to some, the intellectual meat of it will be inspiring. That's what I'm finding so far. It is academic in many ways, however I will say that the writing style of it is incredibly accessible compared with other works which are more written to academics (many of which he quotes from, yet does us the favor of putting it into simpler terms). At times, you can see him let loose with an inspired thought (which I can relate to in writing), but its largely groundwork, drawing off of vast amounts of information from a huge number of authors. It's an amazing effort, and will require a re-read at some point to revisit all the ground covered.

[centauri]

Were the Israelites invaders or defenders?

 

Both.

Specifically, the nations that the Israelites were told to utterly destroy, were they defending their land or did the Israelites invade it?

 

Does the order to exterminate all things that breathe indicate that this deity is a loving creator?

 

Abiyoyo:

Depends on how you define a 'loving creator'.

Then shouldn't Christians include this qualfier in their advertising about God?

Shouldn't they say "God is all-loving, depending on how love is defined." rather than declaring something absolute?

[Deva]

At times, you can see him let loose with an inspired thought (which I can relate to in writing), but its largely groundwork, drawing off of vast amounts of information from a huge number of authors. It's an amazing effort, and will require a re-read at some point to revisit all the ground covered.

 

It is "vast amounts of information from a huge number of authors" At least in "No Boundaries" he gives credit to J. Krishnamurti at the end of the book, which others writing and speaking on the same subject do not. For that I give Ken Wilber credit.

 

It is just my personal taste, I suppose. The content itself is very worthwhile-- just dense and in some parts, impenetrable.

[dagnarus]

 

 

Can you believe this asshat, he claims that it is moral to murder if god commands it, and then says that the muslim version of god is different because it does not teach that god loves everyone? It seems clear by his own reasoning that the Christian god can and does choose to harm people in rather exterme methods and by Craig's argument it is entirely moral for god to do so.

 

I used to have at least a modicum of respect for Craig, but honestly I am appalled at this.

 

First, I want to say that in no way am I saying that murdering or genocide are 'okay'. But, I do have a question? What were the Israelite suppose to do? Lets take God out of the equation for a minute, and lets say that Israel just did these things just to do them. So, are they savage people? Are they murderers? I am just wondering on what political level one would view the ancient group of Israel. Also, on the level of that era in time. Were they robust, savage murderers during warfare compared to all the other settlements?

 

Second, the big question. Why did God order ALL of anything in the settlements to be killed or destroyed? I challenge to ask this. If the Bible would've said that an 'angel' came and destroyed all the settlement because of their sin; Would it be different?

 

Thirdly, Who is God? What is God in authority? Surely, a God could not be a God if He couldn't have authority. So, did God abuse His authority here? If God abused His authority, and slayed people out of 'just because'; then God is a murderer. Yes, to us, He would be a murderer, but to Him? Would He be a murderer for simply moving one human from physical to spiritual?

 

IMO, I have always viewed the battles of Israel as just that, wars. In war, things happen. Now, like I said earlier, I don't justify genocide, but in a way, I get why God would've wanted the 'surrounding environment' destroyed. Supposedly, they worshiped other Gods, weren't very holy people etc. Now, Israel was God's HOLY people supposedly, and they had a million rules and laws to follow; not to mention that if things went bad, they would worship anything they found.

 

Back to the genocide part. So God had them slayed, killed, murdered ( as some put it). What if God is just extremely Holy, the Bible is right, and His people needed to be Holy, and nothing in the confines of God could be foreign in that sense?

 

Could a God that demanded Holiness to such a degree live among unholy people of this nature? God in a sense then, was living among Israel, unlike now. He was hovering over a cloud, above the Holy of Hollies were the priests worshiped.

 

Just a thought.

 

Holy means to be distinct. The fact that when they went to war they butchered everybody just like everybody else makes them indistinct, unholy, just like everybody else. Furthermore the fact that God ordered the mass slaughter of entire people without compassion makes him just as bloodthirsty as the other heathen gods, indistinct, thus unholy. Now if God had of somehow engineered away for the children of Israel to have their promised land without slaughtering the current inhabitants, be it by supernatural means or the natural means of man. Then we would all know that he was a truly distinct holy god, all together different from capricious heathen gods. An example of how he could have done this is that he could have ordered them to swim into the middle of the Mediterranean (thus testing their faith), and then had their promised land suddenly miraculously rise from the ocean.

 

I agree with the first part of your post however, the ancient Israelis were no better or worse than an ancient bronze age culture. Just one more reason why we shouldn't take their books or morality seriously today.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Specifically, the nations that the Israelites were told to utterly destroy, were they defending their land or did the Israelites invade it?

 

 

 

No offense centauri, but for me to genuinely answer that question for you, it will probably be hacked apart, and torn to pieces on this thread. You are asking if they did what they were told to do?

 

Antlerman hit the nail on the head. If we include God in this equation, there is an answer; If not, then there is no answer, but that of non existent, because according to archaeology, Israel existed, but that is about it.

 

But, for this post, we will assume God did tell them to do it.

 

Simple, because God also told them that they were an abomination, worshiped other Gods, etc. So what now? Back to the previous questioning of, Why would God administer an unholy act?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Holy means to be distinct. The fact that when they went to war they butchered everybody just like everybody else makes them indistinct, unholy, just like everybody else.

 

But the difference is the infamous, ...God did it slogan.

 

Furthermore the fact that God ordered the mass slaughter of entire people without compassion makes him just as bloodthirsty as the other heathen gods, indistinct, thus unholy.

 

Who ever said that He damned them to eternal Hell spiritually? Is it possible that God did have compassion on them, kind of like the people of Nineveh? Maybe they just fought and moved to another spot. How many points in the Bible does it say that they actually all ceased to live?

 

Now if God had of somehow engineered away for the children of Israel to have their promised land without slaughtering the current inhabitants, be it by supernatural means or the natural means of man. Then we would all know that he was a truly distinct holy god, all together different from capricious heathen gods. An example of how he could have done this is that he could have ordered them to swim into the middle of the Mediterranean (thus testing their faith), and then had their promised land suddenly miraculously rise from the ocean.

 

That's a good example.

 

I agree with the first part of your post however, the ancient Israelis were no better or worse than an ancient bronze age culture. Just one more reason why we shouldn't take their books or morality seriously today.

 

Remember though dagnarus, they did it in 'the name of'

[Antlerman]

At times, you can see him let loose with an inspired thought (which I can relate to in writing), but its largely groundwork, drawing off of vast amounts of information from a huge number of authors. It's an amazing effort, and will require a re-read at some point to revisit all the ground covered.

 

It is "vast amounts of information from a huge number of authors" At least in "No Boundaries" he gives credit to J. Krishnamurti at the end of the book, which others writing and speaking on the same subject do not. For that I give Ken Wilber credit.

He constantly gives credit and quotations of authors, plus includes 200 pages of footnotes referencing them in this work. This book is extensive, to say the least.

 

It is just my personal taste, I suppose. The content itself is very worthwhile-- just dense and in some parts, impenetrable.

It is dense, but that's my tastes. Certainly not everyones. It's the impenetrable bits that I like, because in figuring its my issue, it pushes me to break through and in so doing there is great gain. Not sure in the end what my feelings about it all will be, but there is certainly a lot of benefit at this point.

[Shyone]

 

Specifically, the nations that the Israelites were told to utterly destroy, were they defending their land or did the Israelites invade it?

 

 

 

 

But, for this post, we will assume God did tell them to do it.

 

Simple, because God also told them that they were an abomination, worshiped other Gods, etc. So what now? Back to the previous questioning of, Why would God administer an unholy act?

And, by "do it" you mean invade Canaan. Which makes the Israelites the invaders and the Canaanites the defenders.

 

As an aside...

 

What is so Godly/Supernatural/Miraculous about this whole thing? Someone (not all) claimed to have been told by God to kill babies. So that's it?

 

Imagine for a moment (take a deep breath, relax, and let it out)...

 

Israel shows up in Canaan, but there was no one there. The Canaanites had migrated for reasons even they don't understand to other uninhabited lands. Or they were transported to another place (like Central America!). Or there had been a plague months before the Israelites went to Canaan, and no one survived (but the plague was also gone).

 

Even if were evil, I would be more likely to believe that a God actually did something if there was any indication of any supernatural element to this whole foul episode.

 

Perhaps the best Apology is to say that if it seems cruel and barbaric, or even unscientific, then God had nothing to do with it.

 

But, then, that's the majority of the Old Testament.

 

Strip away the illogical, the cruel and barbaric, the unscientific, the immoral and the parts that were "borrowed" from surrounding cultures, and see what you have left.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Strip away the illogical, the cruel and barbaric, the unscientific, the immoral and the parts that were "borrowed" from surrounding cultures, and see what you have left.

 

I have, .....and this is what is left,.....

 

 

 

[centauri]

 

Specifically, the nations that the Israelites were told to utterly destroy, were they defending their land or did the Israelites invade it?

 

 

 

No offense centauri, but for me to genuinely answer that question for you, it will probably be hacked apart, and torn to pieces on this thread. You are asking if they did what they were told to do?

Well, at Nuremberg the defense that officials and officers of the Third Reich were just following orders was deemed insufficient justification for genocide and “crimes against humanity”.

If I remember correctly, preemptive war was another issue raised at Nuremberg and that was deemed unacceptable also.

These are things that the Bible God endorses and commands humans to do.

If these things are acceptable because a deity commands it, then the door is wide open for anyone to claim “God” is on their side, and that alone becomes the justification.

This type of justification process has nothing to do with morals, it becomes a function of which “God” has the best funded and vocal advertising agency.

 

Antlerman hit the nail on the head. If we include God in this equation, there is an answer; If not, then there is no answer, but that of non existent, because according to archaeology, Israel existed, but that is about it.

 

But, for this post, we will assume God did tell them to do it.

 

Simple, because God also told them that they were an abomination, worshiped other Gods, etc. So what now? Back to the previous questioning of, Why would God administer an unholy act?

If Craig were to discover that it wasn’t God that administered these actions but was an alien entity posing as God, I wonder if he would stick to his claims and assertions.

Under this scenario, the alien entity told them to kill others and take their land because it found amusement in gullible humans behaving like rival colonies of ants.

We’re back to the Nuremberg defense, where the justification for invasion and mass killing is that a “higher authority” deemed it proper to do so.

In this case, the higher authority hasn’t even been proven to exist, and gets all its power and holiness from humans that are in the business of creating reality for others.

[dagnarus]

 

But the difference is the infamous, ...God did it slogan.

 

 

The same slogan used by everybody, indistinct, unholy.

 

 

Who ever said that He damned them to eternal Hell spiritually? Is it possible that God did have compassion on them, kind of like the people of Nineveh? Maybe they just fought and moved to another spot. How many points in the Bible does it say that they actually all ceased to live?

 

 

I find it interesting that you brought eternal spiritual Hell into seeing as how I didn't. As to your next question, pretty much every time they capture a city in Joshua they specifically state how they killed everybody, not to mention the conquests carried out in numbers, as well as the incident with the Amelekites in Samuel. This was YWHW command, thus making him, indistinct, unholy.

 

 

That's a good example.

 

 

Thank you

 

Remember though dagnarus, they did it in 'the name of'

 

Not for the first time I wonder whether you actually agree with any of this, or your just doing it for amusement. You don't come of as being overly enamored with your position.

[chefranden]

So, if you and your brother were in Israel, saw Moses glowing, coming down from a mountain; striking a rock and water coming out; eating manna that fell from the sky; seen Moses raise his staff, and Israel defeated an army; seen someone miraculously die for stealing loot from a tribe they conquered etc.

 

You wouldn't did what supposedly God commanded? I am simply saying that I can see where they would've gotten the notion to obey God, and the God is Holy notion.

 

No I wouldn't. I'd investigate the phenomenon, well unless I was an ignorant herdsman. However, I doubt very much if anyone actually saw any of this.

 

This taking of Cannon, if it happened, was one tribe taking land from another. Credit was given to their deity for their victory, just as the credit would have gone to the deity of the tribe attacked if the Jews had lost. The winners are always the good guys with the most powerful God. And the winner's god is always the most powerful king of the heap. Extermination was the perceived best way of eliminating future trouble from the left overs. Morals are for the good of yourself and your tribe, not for those other guys.

[Shyone]

The winners are always the good guys with the most powerful God. And the winner's god is always the most powerful king of the heap. Extermination was the perceived best way of eliminating future trouble from the left overs. Morals are for the good of yourself and your tribe, not for those other guys.

It's true that the winners write history usually, but in the case of the Hebrews, it was that they preserved their history better than the Babylonians.

 

The Hebrews even gave their god credit for when they lost. Yahweh gave the babylonians the power to beat them, so the credit for the Babylonian victory does not belong to Marduk.

 

I seriously doubt that the Babylonians viewd these events the same way.

[nightflight]

I can't get passed Craig's assertion that slaughter of the children is okay because "they get eternal life". All the children Bill? What about those children, say...10 years old who have reached the mysterious "age of accountability"?

 

Its just crap! William Craig and those of his ilk have nothing to teach anyone about morality. He may as well defend Babi Yar.

[Auracle]

 

What about the concept of salvation? How about conversion? Why "preach" when slaughter accomplishes what God ordered in the first place?

 

Because God got out of the slaughtering business millennium's ago.

 

 

And that makes it okay that he was ever in the slaughtering business at all how?

[Auracle]

 

 

Israel invaded a territory because God told them so. If Allah tells Muslim to invade a country, why is that wrong if the deity's command is morally right?

 

It is only measurable to those that have measures. I don't judge anyone, and have an understanding that these genocides of Israel took place in ancient times when that is all a people had to conquer another people.....but wait, that is all we still have? We just live in fear of each other now.

 

And who says it's okay to conquer another people in the first damn place?

[Kuroikaze]

 

Israel invaded a territory because God told them so. If Allah tells Muslim to invade a country, why is that wrong if the deity's command is morally right?

 

It is only measurable to those that have measures. I don't judge anyone, and have an understanding that these genocides of Israel took place in ancient times when that is all a people had to conquer another people.....but wait, that is all we still have? We just live in fear of each other now.

 

 

No of course not, but oddly enough you are making our points for us.

 

In my opinion the structure of societies and governments along with the tendency to be extremly xenophobic caused these wars, and a countries god, no matter the name of that god, was a excuse for the behavior not a cause.

 

The reason there is less of this today than there was 3000 years ago is because we have grown socially, morally, economically, technologically, and so on. The reason we do not have the level of violence today that we had then has nothing to do with religion.

 

The point is that we have done a lot better than God ever has at dealing with these problems.